Skip to comments.
CA: Sec of State, A.G. Seek to Intervene in Suit Against Jerry Brown (delay until after election?)
Metropolitan News-Enterprise ^
| October 24, 2006
| STEVEN CISCHKE
Posted on 10/24/2006 1:39:50 PM PDT by calcowgirl
The California secretary of state, the attorney general, and the state Democratic Party are seeking to intervene in a lawsuit filed by state Republican Party leaders challenging Democratic candidate Jerry Browns eligibility to run for state attorney general, Browns attorneys said yesterday.
Zachary Wasserman of Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean in Oakland, representing Brown, told the MetNews that its his understanding that attorneys representing plaintiffs Thomas G. Del Beccaro, Contra Costa County Republican Party chairman; Adam C. Abrahms, head of the Los Angeles chapter of the California Republican Lawyers Association; and others, have stipulated that Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and Attorney General Bill Lockyer may intervene in the action filed last week.
Preliminary Injunction
Charles H. Bell of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk in Sacramento, attorney for the plaintiffs, said last week he intended to seek an order shortening time yesterday with hopes that his clients motion for preliminary injunction could be heard Friday. But Wasserman said everything has been delayed due to the requests to intervene. Wasserman said the application to shorten time has been noticed for this afternoon before Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang. If Chang denies the motion, the court would not be able to hear plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction until after the Nov. 7 election.
But Wasserman said that after the election, a different set of procedural rules apply. The complaint is currently drafted as a taxpayer suit designed to prevent waste which would result from having the votes of an ineligible candidate counted.
Elections Code
After the election, Wasserman said, the plaintiffs would have to follow the procedures for an election challenge under the states Elections Code.
The suit claims that Brown, currently mayor of Oakland, fails to qualify under Government Code Sec. 12503, which says:
No person shall be eligible to the office of Attorney General unless he shall have been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his election or appointment to such office. Plaintiffs contend the statute requires one to be an active member of the bar during the five year period. Browns camp argues the statute only requires that one be a member of the bar during the period.
Brown was initially admitted to the bar in 1965, but went on inactive status from 1997 to May 2003.
State Sen. Chuck Poochigian, R-Fresno, Browns challenger in the race, has said he supports the suit. Browns camp has called it a desperate dirty trick by a candidate behind in the polls.
Calls to plaintiffs attorney Charles H. Bell of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk in Sacramento, and the secretary of state and attorney general offices were not returned.
TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: brownnoteligible; calag2006; calelection; jerrybrown; moonbeam; unqualified
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
To: AmeriBrit; Amerigomag; Carry_Okie; Clintonfatigued; CounterCounterCulture; Czar; Defiant; ...
2
posted on
10/24/2006 1:41:29 PM PDT
by
calcowgirl
("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
To: calcowgirl
Mike Savage is not going to be happy about this. Since this supposed "Conservative" talker maxed out his donation to wacko Leftist Jerry Brown this year.
3
posted on
10/24/2006 1:41:50 PM PDT
by
MNJohnnie
(EeevilCon, Snowflake, Conservative Fundamentalist Gun Owning Bush Bot Dittohead reporting for duty!)
To: calcowgirl
They're going to have to refile as an election challenge - I just don't see how they'll get a court to agree to put in an injunction on this, not with voting already occurring. I think the merits of the case can win, but I just don't see it happening in time to matter.
Now, can someone explain to me why CALGOP isn't running ads bashing Brown over the head on this issue? 'Do you want an Attorney General who ignores the law?' The court of public opinion should be worked on right now. Otherwise, you'll have an angry electorate who will look at the challenge as being yet another 'overturning of their will.'
4
posted on
10/24/2006 1:47:15 PM PDT
by
kingu
(No, I don't use sarcasm tags - it confuses people.)
To: calcowgirl
Browns camp argues the statute only requires that one be a member of the bar during the period. Uhhh -- The wording is "for a period of at least five years", not just at some time during the five year period.
5
posted on
10/24/2006 1:50:05 PM PDT
by
Bob
To: MNJohnnie
Doc Savage was in a mood yesterday related to this. He got called on being a single issue contributor. He basically blew up and went on a tirade. Sometimes I doubt his stability.
To: Bob
According to California Code, when an attorney is on inactive status, they are still "a member." The issue is around the phrase "admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his election."
Under Brown's interpretation, someone graduating law school and passing the bar in 2000, then immediately going "inactive", never practicing law, could still be eligible to run for Attorney General. That makes no sense to me.
7
posted on
10/24/2006 1:57:16 PM PDT
by
calcowgirl
("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
To: kingu; ElkGroveDan
ElkGroveDan predicted that the game is for Arnold to appoint the AG after the election.
Unlike Poochigian, who is a straight shooter, whoever it is Arnold would appoint will make sure the elites in this state are never busted for the racketeering that is consuming its financial resources.
8
posted on
10/24/2006 2:02:14 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are truly evil.)
To: calcowgirl
He became "inactive" by choice, didn't pay his dues, didn't keep his education up till he decided he wanted to be A.G. and now he wants everyone to ignore the wording "immediately preceding" just to suit him. I think not. If he can't follow the law and read his own candidacy application right, how would he be as an A.G?
9
posted on
10/24/2006 2:34:26 PM PDT
by
AmeriBrit
(Soros and Clinton's for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington = SCREW.)
To: calcowgirl
10
posted on
10/24/2006 3:47:47 PM PDT
by
Czar
( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
To: calcowgirl
From the linked article:
By agreeing to stipulate to adding those parties, we trust that it will expedite the case and they will not abuse our act of good faith.
We'll see, but I doubt it.
-PJ
To: calcowgirl
For the Democrats, a candidate caught breaking the law is not a legal and ethical issue. Its a "dirty political trick" to raise the notion that Jerry Brown has run afoul of the law with his Attorney General candidacy.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
12
posted on
10/24/2006 4:34:47 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: calcowgirl
Exactly! The law applies specifically to this office and Brown didn't do his homework prior to filing candidacy papers for AG. Its not the voters fault he's ineligible; its his fault if their votes don't count because he broke the law. And the AG is the state's top law enforcement officer and it wouldn't be right to have someone serve who is above the law, right? I can see only one way the courts can rule and that's not good news for Brown. Precedent and case history aren't on his side here.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
13
posted on
10/24/2006 4:39:23 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Carry_Okie
Thank God we won't get Brown but in all likelihood we will still a liberal as AG.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
14
posted on
10/24/2006 4:41:26 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: AmeriBrit
Jerry Brown, supposedly the smartest guy in California politics has turned out to be the dumbest.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
15
posted on
10/24/2006 4:42:48 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Political Junkie Too
I'm doubtful, as well. I haven't seen anything coming out of the current AG's office lately that I consider in "good faith."
16
posted on
10/24/2006 4:42:59 PM PDT
by
calcowgirl
("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
To: MNJohnnie
Michael Savage is only a conservative on radio. The man choses to live in San Francisco. What's that tell you. He probably supports Pelosi. He's a satirist (forgive the bad spelling because I heard on the news yesterday that red wine prevents cancer). Dr. Weiner's ok with what he does but
PHIL HENDRIE is much better
17
posted on
10/24/2006 4:44:11 PM PDT
by
MaineVoter2002
(If you dont vote on election day, then who are you electing?)
To: calcowgirl
Lockyer is still a Democrat. He's now running for State Treasurer.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
18
posted on
10/24/2006 4:44:25 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: goldstategop
Well. I won't put it past the California establishment (including the courts) to say that Brown filed in good faith and therefore, in the interests of California and competitive elections, they'll let him run anyway and let the people decide if his lack of qualifications is really an issue or not.
-PJ
To: Political Junkie Too; Fedora; All
20
posted on
10/24/2006 6:35:41 PM PDT
by
AmeriBrit
(Soros and Clinton's for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington = SCREW.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson